Robert Ford
December 8, 2009
COMP 106
The Search for Balance Between God and Evolution
Socrates: Did you say that you believe in the separation of Church and State?
[W.J.] Bryan: I did. It is a fundamental principle.
Socrates: Is the right of the majority to rule a fundamental principle?
Bryan: It is.
Socrates: Is freedom of thought a fundamental principle, Mr. Jefferson?
[T.] Jefferson: It is.
Socrates: Well, how would you gentlemen compose your fundamental principles if a majority exercising its fundamental right to rule, ordained that only Buddhism should be taught in public schools?
Bryan: I’d move to a Christian country.
Jefferson: I’d exercise the sacred right to revolution. What would you do, Socrates?
Socrates: I’d re-examine my fundamental principles.
Walter Lippman, Four Dialogues (Montagu).
Sometimes, in order to affirm our beliefs, we have to look inside ourselves and ask the difficult questions that aren’t simple to answer. For years, people from all walks of lives have pondered, “must I choose between Creationism or evolutionary theory?” I propose that maybe it’s the question that really needs reconsidering. Maybe there actually is a logical and reasonable link between these two radical ways of thinking, and that we as students, are empowered with that choice.
Born Catholic, I was raised in private schools that taught religion as a class. It was impressed on me at an early age that God made the universe and life as we currently know it in six days. It was also impressed from these classes that there was no need to question this idea because you should have faith, and faith implies a strong belief in a concept without needing physical evidence.
At that same school, I was also taught about the Big Bang theory and evolution. These teachings were claiming that is was because of long term observations, small changes produce big changes, and life resulted from a series of mutations, producing the best possible outcome for survival. It also seems to contradict the Genesis story, stating the universe and Earth are 14.6 billion years old. Clearly, any student who takes a minute will find an apparent contradiction in the timeline.
After much time through my academic career, I have considered two things. Are students receiving a fair balance of these ideas in their education, and is there a possibility that as a result, a blended theory can comfortably exist in the minds of students?
Gerald Schroeder’s book, Genesis and the Big Bang, insists that there is a provable link. Particularly, he approaches the dilemma of time and how long it took for life to come about. By starting with the facts on evolution, he uses the Bible to interpret what he considers to be a wordplay that has resulted in a misunderstanding of the Genesis story. The Genesis story dictates that God created the world in six, twenty-four hour periods. God willed the earth to exist, and so it did. It is implied, not explicitly stated, that this process was not gradual, but instantaneous.“Traditional theology maintains that had the Creator wished to form the universe in a single act, then that Creator could have done so. From the biblical narrative, it is clear that the plan was not to bring a ready-made universe into existence in a single stroke. For some reason a gradual unfolding was chosen as the method” (48). He suggests that God is most likely the catalyst for life, but the way in which it was brought about isn’t necessarily a literal translation of the bible, or an implied one in any case.
Another interesting angle is specifically on the perception of time. Schroeder explains, “ the first six days of Genesis were six 24-hour days. This means that whoever was in charge recorded the passage of 24 hours per day. But who was there to measure the passage of time? Until Adam appeared on day six, God alone was watching the clock. And that is the key”(49).
In Schroeder's other book, The Science of God, he explains exactly how there is a ratio between the six days and 15 billion years of time that passes. His chart detailed that on each day, half the time of the previous day actually passes. This means that day one was 8 billion years, day two was 4 billion, day 3 was 2 billion, etc. until the final day of 1/4 billion years (60). When each day is added, it equals the total time evolutionists say the universe unfolded. This also parallels the Big Bang theory that the universe began with one giant burst of energy that slowed down. As the universe approached its present form, time was also stretched out to the rate we currently observe.
While there seems to be no strong opposition to Creationism being taught in schools, there is an argument by evolutionists that Creationism should not be taught at the expense of teaching science. " ...On the matter of religion and science, it needs to be said that there is no real incompatibility between the two. There is no incompatibility between a belief in God and the belief that evolution is the means by which all living things have come into being. What is incompatible with science, religion, and civility is the attempt by a narrow fundamentalist sect to impose its particular brand of a creation myth as a substitute or alternative to the findings of science, and to insist on having that myth taught as a fact in the schools, to the exclusion of all other religious teachings" (Montagu, 14).
Montagu's argument is very clear. There is no problem with teaching both of these conflicting ideas, but it is wrong to have religion taught in place of scientific findings. This undermines the student's learning as well as wrongly impress one particular view to sway their way of thinking. It also says that it is wrong to have religion taught as a fact. This is even more so an attempt at using a false sense of understanding to impose ideas that are unprovable, not to mention that the learning process includes questioning, and this makes it very difficult when only one side of a story is told.
Another point is brought out of this. As a student, I want to have the opportunity to question and challenge an idea in a scholarly setting. This produces a comfortable air to be open, giving way to a healthy learning process. In Eugene Carol Scott’s Evolution vs. Creationism, the author argues why having a good perspective compliments a student's knowledge base, and how creationism, being taught as fact, undermines the truthfulness of what a student learns. "It is not 'fair' to mislead students by presenting scientifically uncontroversial issues as controversial. Evolution is taught matter-of-factly at any reputable university in this country, including Brigham young (Mormon), Baylor (Baptist), and Notre Dame (Catholic). It is a controversial subject only to members of the public. It would be 'fair' to discuss the creation and evolution controversy as a politically- or socially-controversial issue, but it shortchanges students to teach them that there is any scientific controversy over the concept that the universe has changed through time, and that living things have descended with modification from earlier ancestors. 'Equal time for creationism' policies do just that, handicapping students for future study in college, and decreasing their scientific literacy" (214). In addition, creationism is a religion, not a science, and should be treated as such. There is nothing wrong with having religion taught alongside science, but when religion is claimed as more than what it is, students are taught the wrong thing.
A survey group consisting of mostly college students and college-educated adults answered questions to find out how they felt about their education and what they believe as a result. Topics included how much emphasis was placed on Creationism and evolution in their education, how old the universe is, the influence of life's presence, and other provoking questions. All are Christians who believe in God and have schooling backgrounds that included a religion education. All said that Creationism was emphasized as part of the curriculum, and over 60% said that Evolution was emphasized. 50% believed religion to have a lot of influence in their personal beliefs while the rest believed that some influence was placed.
Despite the great amount of sway made by their religious upbringing, nearly 70% believe the universe was created in 4.6 billion years, while the remaining 30% were simply unsure. All believe a blended belief in God and evolution can rationally fit together as part of theirs and others' belief systems. This is good, because most agreed that God is the catalyst for evolution, while the rest believe it to be a definite possibility. This is also supported by the fact that 50% say that it was mostly God and some evolution that brought about life, concluding that they believe God is the reason for evolution, and that this is not an irrational concept to them.
In an interview with a high school teacher, Mrs. Janice Sharkey, I had an opportunity to understand if students are getting a balanced perspective on this debate. Short blonde hair, an upbeat walk, and a smile that hints at a true goodness beneath the surface are what makes for a magnetic personality in Mrs. Sharkey. She has been a great motherly figure for the lost boys of Catholic Central High School, and anyone asked would agree. Due to her 26 years of theology teaching, she has experience and knowledge to back up the insight she provided on such a difficult topic. Over her career she has taught on the subjects of English, Old and New Testament, Social Justice, Christian Vocations, and Sacraments.
She emphatically believes students receive a very fair and balanced share of both the evolution and Creationism concepts. As far as her classes go, she lectures on a variety of topics, from the history of Christianity to sexual morality. I asked her about how she approaches the idea of Creationism and evolution in her classes, and she responded: "Creationism and Evolution were a small part of the Old Testament class when we studied the Book of Genesis. I taught the Creation story in light of the goodness of God and creation that is an on-going process in the history of the planet. The manner or moment in which an elephant, a bumblebee, or homo-sapiens came into being is not the point. The theological point is how we, as currently the most evolved species, treat each other and every other part of creation."
I took some time to reflect on this statement. There simply was no easy answer for this question, yet she had given the best possible response. From the book research to the survey to the words of Mrs. Sharkey, some incredible consistency was revealed. I have found that a blended view of both theories is the best answer to this nagging ponderance, and that an education that supports the healthy balance between the two is the best way to let anyone choose their beliefs. Whether or not God or evolution brought about life, all sources agreed that it is not so much choosing one extreme or the other. People must understand that life and how it was brought about was an intricate and beautiful process, one that was probably undertaken by a benevolent supreme being, and through a deliberate and tedious manner, gradual changes developed to the splendor we enjoy in our daily lives.
Works Cited Page
Eve, Raymond A., and Francis B. Harrold. "Creationism, Evolution, and Social Movements." The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1991. Print.
Montagu, Ashley. Science and Creationism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. Print.
Schroeder, Gerald L.. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom. New York City: The Free Press, 1997. Print.
Schroeder, PhD., Gerald L.. "Stretching Time." Genesis and the Big Bang. New York: Bantam Books, 1990. Print.
Scott, Eugnene C. Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004. Print.
